ATI's Late Response to G70 - Radeon X1800, X1600 and X1300
by Derek Wilson on October 5, 2005 11:05 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Test Setup and Power Performance
Our testing methodology was to try and cover a lot of ground with top to bottom hardware. Including the X1300 through the X1800 line required quite a few different cards and tests to be run. In order to make it easier to look at the data, rather than put everything for each game in one place as we normally do, we have broken up our data into three separate groups: Budget, Midrange, and High End.
We used the latest drivers we had available which are both beta drivers. From NVIDIA, the 81.82 drivers were tested rather than the current release as we expect the rel 80 drivers to be in the end users hands before the X1000 series is easy to purchase.
All of our tests were done on this system:
ATI Radeon Express 200 based system
AMD Athlon 64 FX-55
1GB DDR400 2:2:2:8
120 GB Seagate 7200.7 HD
600 W OCZ PowerStreams PSU
The resolutions we tested range from 800x600 on the low end to 2048x1536 on the high end. The games we tested include:
Before we take a look at the performance numbers, here's a look at the power draw of various hardware.
As we can see, this generation draws about as much power as previous generatation products under load at the high end and midrange. The X1300 Pro seems to draw a little more power than we would like to see in a budget part. The card also sports a fan that is just as loud as the X1600 XT. Considering that some of the cards we tested against the X1300 Pro were passively cooled, this is something to note.
Our testing methodology was to try and cover a lot of ground with top to bottom hardware. Including the X1300 through the X1800 line required quite a few different cards and tests to be run. In order to make it easier to look at the data, rather than put everything for each game in one place as we normally do, we have broken up our data into three separate groups: Budget, Midrange, and High End.
We used the latest drivers we had available which are both beta drivers. From NVIDIA, the 81.82 drivers were tested rather than the current release as we expect the rel 80 drivers to be in the end users hands before the X1000 series is easy to purchase.
All of our tests were done on this system:
ATI Radeon Express 200 based system
AMD Athlon 64 FX-55
1GB DDR400 2:2:2:8
120 GB Seagate 7200.7 HD
600 W OCZ PowerStreams PSU
The resolutions we tested range from 800x600 on the low end to 2048x1536 on the high end. The games we tested include:
- Day of Defeat: Source
- Doom 3
- EverQuest 2
- Far Cry
- Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory
- The Chronicles of Riddick
Before we take a look at the performance numbers, here's a look at the power draw of various hardware.
As we can see, this generation draws about as much power as previous generatation products under load at the high end and midrange. The X1300 Pro seems to draw a little more power than we would like to see in a budget part. The card also sports a fan that is just as loud as the X1600 XT. Considering that some of the cards we tested against the X1300 Pro were passively cooled, this is something to note.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
103 Comments
View All Comments
TinyTeeth - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Oh, I had completely ignored that one because I heard something about their graphs being horrible and hard to read. But I'll take a look at it, thanks!TinyTeeth - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
And now I remember it was PC Perspective that had the horrible graphs.Sorry, my head isn't working properly today, I'm afraid. :(
fishbits - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Maybe a late, light review was supposed to be a witty jab at ATI? :Photdog453 - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
I agree. But, some review sites are still touting Quake3 as a benchmark for some components (mainly CPUs now, but still)... they use games that stress the component well, not really the games you and I may be playing. Kind of ironic, I know.Honestly, when was the last time any of us fired up Doom3, except to benchmark something? It was a horrible game. Simply horrible. Scripted events do not a good game make. But from a technical, omg, point of view, it made cards cry. So they use it *shrug*
Madellga - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Is that right? Or the titles were wrongly exchanged?hoppa - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Am I missing something here? The article states that the hardware is quite powerful and a good deal, yet to me the benchmarks look absolutely miserable. The X1ks are on the bottom of nearly every chart, and in some cases, even lower than their predecessors (X800)! What the hell!JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Actually, the conclusion states that the hardware appears quite powerful - especially the X1800 XT - but that the price is too high. I saw several places where the article comments on price, so if you got the impression that it's a "good deal" let me know where and I'll edit it. :)Madellga - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
On the high end comparison - Day of Defeat, it is missing the X1800XT performance bar.Madellga - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
For the 1600x1200 chart...JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Fixed - it was 59.5 FPS, if you read the text.